Allowed

Usha Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2018A227/3134/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge allowed a Section 482 CrPC application to quash an order permitting amendment of evidence in Section 138 NI Act cases. The court held no prejudice was caused, granted one chance for correct documentation, and prevented procedural delays.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned orders; granted opposite party one opportunity to lead correct evidence without prolonging proceedings.

Usha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3134 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Usha Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Barnwal,Namisha Baranwal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 9th March, 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Moradabad in Criminal Complaint No. 1626 of 2016 (Smt. Sudesh Khanna vs. Smt. Usha Gupta) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad as also to quash the order dated 3rd April, 2018 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. Nill of 2018 (Smt. Usha Gupta vs. State of U.P. & Another).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no amendments could have been permitted, inasmuch as, the Code does not allow such a procedure.

¶8

Further perusal of the order reveals that opposite party no.2 has not sought any amendment in the complaint but has only stated that she had instituted two cases against the present applicant, both under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and that due to inadvertence affidavit and other documents related to one case, have been filed by way of evidence with other case. It had, thus, been prayed that opposite party no.2 be allowed to bring on record the correct documents on the relevant record of each case.

¶9

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant.

¶10

However, it is made clear that only one opportunity be allowed to opposite party no.2 to lead such other evidence as she may be advised and that proceedings may not be allowed to be prolonged for such reason.

¶11

With the above observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.6.2018 Sushil/-

Usha Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh @ Mahesh Sharma @ Mahesh Babu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Koshal Kisore Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nirbhay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bhothai and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mayank Vs State of U.P. and Ahother